A Refinement of Vietoris Inequality for Cosine Polynomials

Abstract: The classical Vietoris cosine inequality is refined by establishing a positive polynomial lower bound.

\section{Introduction}

In 1958, Vietoris \cite{V} published the following ``surprising and quite deep result" \cite[p. 1]{K} on inequalities  for a class of sine and cosine polynomials.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent
{\bf{Proposition 1.}} \emph{If the real numbers
$a_k$ $(k=0,1,...,n)$ satisfy
$$
a_0\geq a_1 \geq \cdots \geq a_n>0
\quad{and}
\quad{2k a_{2k}\leq (2k-1) a_{2k-1} \,\,\, (k\geq 1)},
$$
then}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^n a_k \sin(kx)>0
\quad{and}
\quad{\sum_{k=0}^n a_k \cos(kx)>0} \quad{(0<x<\pi)}.
\end{equation}

\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent
In order to prove (1.1) it is enough to consider the special case $a_k=b_k$, where
$$
b_{2k}=b_{2k+1}=\frac{1}{4^k}{2k \choose k}\,\,\,
(k\geq 0)
$$
and to apply summation by parts; see Askey and Steinig \cite{AS}.
In fact, Vietoris proved that
\begin{equation}
S_n(x)>0 \quad\mbox{and}
\quad{T_n(x)>0}
\quad{(n\geq 1; 0<x< \pi)},
\end{equation}
where
$$
S_n(x)=\sum_{k=1}^n b_k \sin(kx)
\quad\mbox{and}
\quad{
T_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n b_k\cos(kx)}.
$$
In what follows, we maintain these notations.

In 1974, Askey and Steinig \cite{AS}
offered
a simplified proof of (1.2) and showed that
these inequalities have remarkable applications in the theory of ultraspherical polynomials and that they can be used to find estimates for the location of zeros of trigonometric polynomials.

In the recent past, Vietoris' inequalities received attention from several authors, who offered new conditions on the coefficients $a_k$ such that (1.1) holds;
see Belov \cite{B}, Brown \cite{Br},
Brown and Dai \cite{BDW}, Brown and Hewitt \cite{BH}, Brown and Yin \cite{BY}, Koumandos \cite{K}, Mondal and Swaminathan \cite{MS}.
 Interesting historical remarks on these inequalities were given by Askey
\cite{A2}.

Is it possible to replace the lower bound $0$ in (1.2)
by a positive expression? In 2010, this problem was solved
for the sine polynomial $S_n$. Alzer, Koumandos and Lamprecht
\cite{AKL} proved the following

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Proposition 2.}}
\emph{The inequalities}
\begin{equation}
S_n(x)>\sum_{k=0}^4 a_k x^k>0
\quad{(a_k\in\mathbf{R}, k=0,...,4)}
\end{equation}
\emph{hold for all $n\geq 1$ and $x\in (0,\pi)$ if and only if}
$$
a_0=0, \quad{a_1=-\pi^2 a_4},
\quad{a_2=3 \pi^2 a_4},
\quad{a_3=-3\pi a_4},
\quad{-1/\pi^3<a_4<0}.
$$
{\em Moreover, in} (1.3) {\em
the biquadratic polynomial cannot be replaced by an algebraic polynomial of degree smaller than $4$.
}

It is natural to ask for a counterpart
of Proposition 2 which holds for the cosine polynomial $T_n$. More precisely, we try to find algebraic polynomials $p$ of smallest degree such that
\begin{equation}
T_n(x)\geq p(x)>0 \quad{(n\geq 1; 0<x<\pi)}.
\end{equation}
It is the aim of this paper to determine
all quadratic polynomials $p$ satisfying
(1.4).

We remark that there is no linear
polynomial $p$  such that (1.4) is valid. Otherwise,
setting $p(x)=\gamma_0 +\gamma_1 x$
gives
$$
T_1(x)=1+\cos(x)\geq \gamma_0+\gamma_1 x>0.
$$
We let $x$ tend to $\pi$ and  obtain
$\gamma_0=-\pi \gamma_1$. Thus,
$$
\frac{1+\cos(x)}{\pi-x}\geq -\gamma_1 >0.
$$
But, this contradicts
$$
\lim_{x\to\pi}\frac{1+\cos(x)}{\pi-x}=
0.
$$

In the next section, we collect twelve lemmas. Our main result is presented in Section 3. We conclude the paper with some remarks which
are given in Section 4. Among others,
we provide a new inequality for a sum of
Jacobi polynomials.

The numerical values  in this paper
have been calculated via the computer program MAPLE 13. We point out
that
in four places we apply the classical Sturm theorem to determine the number of distinct
zeros of an algebraic polynomial in a given interval. Since the Sturm procedure requires lengthy technical computations
we omit the details. However,   those details which we do not include in this paper
are compiled in the supplementary article
\cite{AK}.
Concerning
Sturm's theorem we also refer to
van der Waerden \cite[p. 248 ]{W} and  Kwong \cite{Kw}.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\section{Lemmas}

Here, we collect  lemmas
which play an important role in the proof of
our main result.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 1.}} \emph{We have}
\begin{equation}
\min_{0\leq x<\pi}\frac{T_6(x)}{(x-\pi)^2}
=0.12290... .
\end{equation}

\emph{Proof.}
We define
$$
\eta(x)=10x^6+6x^5-12x^4-\frac{11}{2}x^3+\frac{29}{8}x^2+\frac{11}{8} x+\frac{9}{16}
$$
and
$$
\theta(x)=(\pi-\arccos(x))^2.
$$
Let $c=0.1229$.
First, we show that
\begin{equation}
\eta(x)-c \theta(x)>0 \quad\mbox{for}
\quad{x\in (-1,1]}.
\end{equation}
We distinguish six cases.

Case 1. $-1<x<0$.\\
Let
$$
\omega(x)=\frac{1}{3}x^4+\frac{\pi}{6}x^3+x^2+\pi x +\frac{\pi^2}{4}.
$$
Then we have
\begin{equation}
\omega(x)>0 \quad\mbox{and}
\quad{\omega'(x)>0.}
\end{equation}
Let
$$
\phi(x)=\sqrt{\omega(x)}-\sqrt{\theta(x)}.
$$
Differentiation gives
$$
4(1-x^2)\Bigl(\frac{\omega'(x)}{2\sqrt{\omega(x)}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}\Bigr)\omega(x)\phi'(x)=
-\frac{1}{36}x^4(8x+3\pi)(8x^3+3\pi x^2+16x+9\pi)<0,
$$
so that (2.3) leads to
$$
\phi'(x)<0\quad\mbox{and}
\quad{\phi(x)>\phi(0)=0}.
$$
Since
$$
\eta(x)-c\omega(x)>0,
$$
we obtain
$$
\eta(x)-c\theta(x)>c(\omega(x)-\theta(x))>0.
$$

Case 2. $0\leq x\leq 0.3$\\
Using $\eta'(x)>0$ and $\theta'(x)>0$
gives
$$
\eta(x)- c\theta(x)\geq \eta(0)-c\theta(0.3)=0.13... .
$$

Case 3. $0.3\leq x\leq 0.5$.\\
We have $\eta''(x)<0$ and $\theta'(x)>0$. This yields
$$
\eta(x)-c\theta(x)\geq \min (\eta(0.3), \eta(0.5))-c \theta(0.5)=\eta(0.5)-c\theta(0.5)=0.52... .
$$

Case 4. $0.5\leq x\leq 0.65$.\\
Since $\eta'(x)<0$ and $\theta'(x)>0$, we get
$$
\eta(x)-c\theta(x)\geq \eta(0.65)-c\theta(0.65)=0.14... .
$$

Case 5. $0.65\leq x\leq 0.95$.\\
We have $\eta(x)>0$. Let
$$
\lambda(x)=\sqrt{\eta(x)}
-\sqrt{c\theta(x)}
\quad\mbox{and}
\quad{\mu(x)=\eta(x)\eta''(x)-\frac{1}{2}\eta'(x)^2}.
$$
Differentiation leads to
\begin{equation}
2(1-x^2)^3 \Bigl(\frac{\mu(x)}{\eta(x)^{3/2}}+\frac{2\sqrt{c}x}{(1-x^2)^{3/2}}\Bigr)\eta(x)^3\lambda''(x)
=(1-x^2)^{3}\mu(x)^2 -4c x^2 \eta(x)^3=\nu(x), \quad\mbox{say}.
\end{equation}
The function $\mu$ and $\nu$ are polynomials. Applying
Sturm's theorem
reveals that $\mu$ and
$\nu$ have no zeros on $[0.65,0.95]$.
Since $\mu(3/4)>0$ and $\nu(3/4)>0$, we conclude that both functions are positive
on $[0.65,0.95]$. From (2.4) we find
 that $\lambda''(x)>0$. Let
$x^*=0.74746$. Then, $\lambda'(x^*)>0$.
This implies
$$
\lambda(x)\geq \lambda(x^*)+(x-x^*)\lambda'(x^*)
\geq \lambda(x^*)+(0.65-x^*)\lambda'(x^*)=0.0000077... .
$$

Case 6. $0.95\leq x\leq 1$.\\
Since $\eta'(x)>0$ and $\theta'(x)>0$, we obtain
$$
\eta(x)-c\theta(x)\geq \eta(0.95)-c\theta(1)=1.43... .
$$
Thus, (2.2) is proved. Let
$$
T^*(x)=\frac{T_6(x)}{(\pi-x)^2}.
$$
We have
$\lim_{x\to\pi} T^*(x)=\infty$ and
$T_6(x)=\eta(\cos(x))$. From (2.2) we obtain
$$
0.1229<T^*(x) \quad{(0\leq x<\pi)}.
$$
Since $T^*(0.725)=0.122907...$, we conclude
that (2.1) is valid.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Remark.}}
Numerical computation shows that the minimum value is
$$
 \alpha  = 0.12290390650...  \label{alp}
$$
attained at the unique point $ x=0. 72656896349... $.

\vspace{0.3cm}
The following lemma is known as
l'H\^opital's rule for monotonicity. A slightly weaker version can be found in \cite[Proposition 148]{HLP}.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 2.}} \emph{Let $u$ and $v$ be real-valued functions which are continuous
on  $[a,b]$ and differentiable on $(a,b)$.
Furthermore, let $v' \neq 0$ on $(a,b)$. If $u'/v'$ is strictly increasing (resp. decreasing) on $(a,b)$, then
the functions
$$
x\mapsto \frac{u(x)-u(a)}{v(x)-v(a)}
\quad{and}
\quad{x\mapsto \frac{u(x)-u(b)}{v(x)-v(b)}
}
$$
are strictly increasing (resp.
decreasing) on $(a,b)$.}

\vspace{0.3cm}
A proof for the next lemma is given by Vietoris in \cite{V}.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 3.}} \emph{Let $n\geq 2$ and $x\in (0,\pi)$.
Then,}
$$
1+\cos(x)-
\frac{1}{4\sin(x/2)}
\Bigl(1+\sin(3x/2)\Bigr)
\leq T_n(x).
$$

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 4.}} \emph{If $3\pi/8\leq x<\pi$, then}
\begin{equation}
\frac{123}{1000}
(\pi-x)^2<1+\cos(x)-
\frac{1}{4\sin(x/2)}
\Bigl(1+\sin(3x/2)\Bigr).
\end{equation}

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
Let
$$
g(x)=\frac{123}{1000}(\pi-x)^2
\quad\mbox{and}
\quad{h(x)=1+\cos(x)-
\frac{1}{4\sin(x/2)}
\Bigl(1+\sin(3x/2)\Bigr)}.
$$
Then we have
$$
g'(x)=
\frac{123}{500}(x-\pi)<0
\quad\mbox{and}
\quad{h'(x)=
\frac{\cos(x/2)}{8\sin^2(x/2)}
\Bigl(1-8 \sin^3(x/2)\Bigr)<0.}
$$
Let $3\pi/8\leq r\leq x\leq s\leq 2\pi/3$.
We obtain
$$
h(x)-g(x)\geq h(s)-g(r)=q(r,s),
\quad\mbox{say}.
$$
Since
$$
q(3\pi/8,1.27)=0.0024...,
\quad{q(1.27,1.45)=0.0024...},
\quad{q(1.45,1.7)=0.0008...},
$$
$$
q(1.70,1.95)=0.0072...,
\quad{q(1.95,2\pi/3)=0.0366...},
$$
we conclude that (2.5) holds for $x\in [3\pi/8, 2\pi/3]$.

Next, we define
$$
f(x)=g(x)-h(x).
$$
Let $y\in (0,\pi/3)$.
Using
$$
\frac{y}{2}<\frac{\sin(y/2)}{\cos(y/2)}
$$
yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
f'(\pi-y) &=&
\frac{\sin(y/2)}{8 \cos^2(y/2)}
\Bigl( 8 \cos^3(y/2)-1 \Bigr)-
\frac{123 y}{500} \\
  &>&
\frac{\sin(y/2)}{8 \cos^2(y/2)}
\Bigl( 8 \cos^3(y/2)-4\cos(y/2)-1\Bigr) \\[1.2ex] &>& 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, $y\mapsto f(\pi-y)$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,\pi/3)$, so that
we get
$$
f(\pi-y)< f(\pi)=0.
$$
This proves (2.5) for $x\in (2\pi/3,\pi)$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 5.}} \emph{For $x\in[0,\pi]$,}
\begin{equation}
x^2<\frac{20000}{99}\Bigl(1-\cos\frac{x}{10}\Bigr).
\end{equation}

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
Let
$$
u_0(x)=1-\cos(x/10) \quad\mbox{and}
\quad{v_0(x)=x^2}.
$$
Since
$$
200\,\frac{u_0'(x)}{v_0'(x)}=\frac{\sin(x/10)}{x/10}
$$
is decreasing on $[0,\pi]$, we conclude from Lemma 2 that the function
$$
w(x)=\frac{1-\cos(x/10)}{x^2}
\quad{(0<x\leq \pi)},
\quad{w(0)=\frac{1}{200}}
$$
is also decreasing on $[0,\pi]$. Thus, for $x\in[0,\pi]$,
$$
w(x)\geq w(\pi)=0.004959... >0.00495=\frac{99}{20000}.
$$
This settles (2.6).

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 6.}} \emph{Let $a_k$, $\beta_k$ $(k=1,...,n)$, and $\alpha^*$ be real numbers such that}
$$
\sum_{k=1}^j a_k \geq \alpha^*
\quad{for} \quad{j=1,...,n}
\quad{and}
\quad{\beta_1\geq \beta_2 \geq \cdots \geq \beta_n\geq 0}.
$$
\emph{Then,}
$$
\sum_{k=1}^n a_k \beta_k\geq \alpha^* \beta_1.
$$

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
Let
$$
A_j=\sum_{k=1}^j a_k \quad\mbox{and}
\quad{\beta_{n+1}=0.}
$$
Summation by parts gives
$$
\sum_{k=1}^n {a_k \beta_k}=\sum_{k=1}^n
A_k(\beta_k -\beta_{k+1})
\geq \sum_{k=1}^n
\alpha^* (\beta_k -\beta_{k+1})=\alpha^* \beta_1.
$$

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 7.}} \emph{Let
$$
C_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k b_k \cos(kx).
$$
If $2\leq n\leq 21$ $(n\neq 6)$ and $x\in (5\pi/8,\pi)$, then}
\begin{equation}
\frac{820}{33}\Bigl(1-\cos\frac{x}{10}\Bigr)
\leq C_n(x).
\end{equation}

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
 We
set $y=x/10$ and
$$
P_n(y)=C_n(10y)-\frac{820}{33}(1-\cos(y)).
$$
Putting $Y=\cos(y)$ reveals that $P_n(y)$ is
 an algebraic polynomial in $Y$.
We denote this polynomial by $P_n^*(Y)$, where
 $Y\in [\cos(\pi/10), \cos(\pi/16)]
=[0.951...,0.980...]$. Applying Sturm's
theorem gives that $P_n^*$ has
no zero on $[0.951, 0.981]$ and satisfies $P_n^*(0.97)>0$. It follows that $P_n$
is positive on $[\pi/16, \pi/10]$. This implies that (2.7) holds.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 8.}} \emph{Let}
\begin{equation}
\Delta(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{21} (-1)^k (b_k -b_{22}) \cos(kx)-\frac{820}{33}\Bigl(1-\cos\frac{x}{10}\Bigr).
\end{equation}
\emph{If \, $5\pi/8\leq x\leq 2.68$, \, then}
\, $\Delta(x)> 0.29$;

\emph{if \, $2.68\leq x\leq 2.83$, \, then}
\, $\Delta(x)> 0.46$;

\emph{if \, $2.83\leq x\leq 2.908$, \, then}
\, $\Delta(x)> 0.64$;

\emph{if \, $2.908\leq x\leq 2.970$, \, then}
\, $\Delta(x)> 0.90$;

\emph{if \, $2.970\leq x\leq 3.021$, \,
then}
\, $\Delta(x)> 1.32$;

\emph{if \, $3.021\leq x\leq 3.051$, \, then}
\, $\Delta(x)> 1.78$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
Let $5\pi/8\leq x\leq 2.68$. We have
$\cos(\pi/16)=0.980...$ and $\cos(0.268)=0.964...$.
The function $\Delta -0.29$ is an algebraic
polynomial in $Y=\cos(x/10)$. An application of
Sturm's theorem gives that this function
is positive on $[0.964,0.981]$. This leads
to $\Delta(x)>0.29$ for $x\in [5\pi/8, 2.68]$. Using the same method of proof we obtain that the other estimates for $\Delta(x)$ are also valid.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 9.}} \emph{Let $n\geq 22$,}
\begin{equation}
H_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k \cos(kx)
\quad{and}
\quad{D_n(x)=b_{22} H
_{22}(x)+\sum_{k=23}^n (-1)^k b_k\cos(kx).
}
\end{equation}
\emph{If \, $5\pi/8\leq x\leq 2.68$, \, then}
\, $D_n(x)\geq - 0.29$;

\emph{if \, $2.68\leq x\leq 2.83$, \, then}
\, $D_n(x)\geq - 0.46$;

\emph{if \, $2.83\leq x\leq 2.908$, \, then}
\, $D_n(x)\geq - 0.64$;

\emph{if \, $2.908\leq x\leq 2.970$, \, then}
\, $D_n(x)\geq - 0.90$;

\emph{if \, $2.970\leq x\leq 3.021$, \, then}
\, $D_n(x)\geq - 1.32$;

\emph{if \, $3.021\leq x\leq 3.051$, \, then}
\, $D_n(x)\geq - 1.78$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
We have
$$
H_n(x)
=\frac{1}{2}+(-1)^n\frac{\cos((n+1/2)x)}{2\cos(x/2)}.
$$
Let $5\pi/8\leq x\leq 2.68$. Then we obtain
\begin{equation}
H_n(x)\geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2\cos(x/2)}
\geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2\cos(1.34)}
=-1.68...>-1.72...=
-\frac{0.29 \cdot 4^{11}}{{22\choose 11}}
=-\frac{0.29}{b_{22}}.
\end{equation}
Using (2.10) and
$$
b_{22}\geq b_{23} \geq \cdots \geq b_n
$$
we conclude from Lemma 6 that
$D_n(x)\geq -0.29$.
Applying the same method we obtain the other estimates.

\vspace{0.3cm}
As usual, we set
$$
(a)_0=1, \quad{(a)_n=\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}  (a+k)}=\frac{\Gamma(a+n)}{\Gamma(a)}
\quad{(n\geq 1)}.
$$
The following result is due to Koumandos
\cite{K}; see also Koumandos \cite{K1} for background information.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 10.}} \emph{Let  $ 0<\gamma <0. 6915562 $ be given and}
\begin{equation}
d_{2k} = d_{2k+1} = \frac{(\gamma )_k}{k! }
\qquad{(k=0,1,2,...)} .
\end{equation}

\emph{Then, for $n\geq 1$ and $x\in (0,\pi)$,}
$$
\sum_{k=0}^n d_k \cos(kx)>0.
$$

\vspace{0.3cm}
In what follows, we denote by $d_k$ $(k=0,1,2,...)$ the numbers defined in (2.11)
with $\gamma=0.69$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 11.}} \emph{Let}
\begin{equation}
I(x)=
\sum_{k=0}^{21}\Bigl(b_k-\frac{b_{22}}{d_{22}} d_k\Bigr)\cos(kx).
\end{equation}
\emph{If $0<x\leq 0.1$, then} $I(x)>1.5$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
Setting $Y=\cos(x)$ gives that $I-1.5$  is an algebraic polynomial in $Y$. We have $\cos(0.1)=0.995...$. Sturm's theorem reveals that this polynomial is positive
on $[0.995,1]$. It follows that
$I(x)>1.5$ for $x\in[0,0.1]$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Lemma 12.}} \emph{Let $n\geq 22$ and}
\begin{equation}
J_n(x)=\frac{b_{22}}{d_{22}}\sum_{k=0}^{21}
d_k\cos(kx)
+\sum_{k=22}^n
b_k\cos(kx).
\end{equation}
\emph{If $0<x<\pi$, then} $J_n(x)\geq 0$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
Let $x\in (0,\pi)$.
We set
$$
K_j(x)=\frac{b_{22}}{d_{22}}\sum_{k=0}^j
d_k\cos(kx)\quad{(j=0,1,2,...)}
$$
Then, $K_0(x) \equiv b_{22}/d_{22}$ and from Lemma 10 we obtain
$$
K_j(x)> 0 \quad\mbox{for} \quad{j\geq 1}.
$$
Let
$$
a_k=\frac{b_{22}}{d_{22}} d_k \cos(kx)
\quad{(k=0,1,...,n)},
\quad{\beta_0 = \cdots =\beta_{21}=1},
\quad{\beta_k=\frac{d_{22} b_k}{b_{22} d_k}} \quad{(k=22,...,n)}.
$$
Since
$$
\beta_0\geq \beta_1 \geq \cdots \geq \beta_n>0,
$$
we conclude from Lemma 6  that
$$
J_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n a_k \beta_k  \geq 0.
$$

\vspace{0.3cm}
\section{Main result}

We are now in a position to present
positive lower bounds for the
cosine polynomial $T_n$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent
{\bf{Theorem.}} \emph{The inequalities
\begin{equation}
T_n(x)\geq c_0 + c_1 x + c_2 x^2 >0
\quad{(c_k\in\mathbf{R}, k=0,1,2)}
\end{equation}
hold for all natural numbers $n$ and real numbers $x\in (0,\pi)$ if and only if}
\begin{equation}
c_0=\pi^2 c_2,
\quad{c_1=-2\pi c_2,}
\quad{0<c_2\leq \alpha},
\end{equation}
\emph{where}
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\min_{0\leq t<\pi}
\frac{T_6(t)}{(t-\pi)^2}=0.12290... .
\end{equation}

\vspace{0.3cm}
\emph{Proof.}
We set
$$
Q(x)=c_0+c_1 x+c_2 x^2.
$$
If (3.1) is valid for all $n\geq 1$ and $x\in (0,\pi)$, then we get
$$
T_1(x)=1+\cos(x)\geq Q(x)>0.
$$
We let $x$ tend to $\pi$ and obtain $c_0+c_1\pi +c_2 \pi^2=0$. Thus,
$$
\frac{1+\cos(x)}{x-\pi}\leq\frac{Q(x)}{x-\pi} =c_1+c_2(x+\pi)<0.
$$
Again, we let $x$ tend to $\pi$. This gives
\begin{equation}
c_1=-2\pi c_2 \quad\mbox{and}
\quad{ c_0=-\pi c_1- \pi^2 c_2=\pi^2 c_2.}
\end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{equation}
Q(x)=c_2(x-\pi)^2 \quad\mbox{with}
\quad{c_2>0}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, from (3.1) (with $n=6$) we obtain
$$
\frac{T_6(x)}{(x-\pi)^2}\geq\frac{Q(x)}{(x-\pi)^2 }=c_2.
$$
Using (3.3) leads to
\begin{equation}
\alpha \geq c_2 .
\end{equation}
From (3.4) - (3.6) we conclude that (3.2) holds.

Next,  we show  that (3.2) and (3.3) lead to
(3.1). If (3.2) and (3.3) are valid, then
$$
0<c_0+c_1 x+c_2 x^2 =c_2(x-\pi)^2
\leq \alpha (x-\pi)^2.
$$
Hence, we have to prove that
\begin{equation}
\alpha(x-\pi)^2\leq T_n(x)
\quad{(n\geq 1; 0<x<\pi)}.
\end{equation}
Applying Lemma 2 we obtain that the function
$$
F(x)=\frac{T_1(x)}{(x-\pi)^2}=\frac{1+\cos(x)}{(x-\pi)^2}
$$
is strictly increasing on $(0,\pi)$. Thus,
$$
F(x)> F(0)=\frac{2}{\pi^2}=0.202... .
$$
This settles (3.7) for $n=1$. From (3.3) we
conclude that (3.7) is also valid for $n=6$.
In what follows we prove
\begin{equation}
\frac{123}{1000}(\pi-x)^2\leq T_n(x)
\end{equation}
for $n\geq 2$ $(n\neq 6)$ and $x\in (0,\pi)$. With regard to Lemma 3 and Lemma 4
we may assume that $x\in (0,3\pi/8)$.
We replace in (3.8) $x$ by $\pi-x$. It follows that it is enough to prove
\begin{equation}
\frac{123}{1000}x^2
\leq \sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k b_k \cos(kx)=C_n(x)
\end{equation}
for $n\geq 2$ $(n\neq 6)$ and $x\in (5\pi/8, \pi)$.
Using Lemma 5 yields that
\begin{equation}
\frac{820}{33}\Bigl(1-\cos\frac{x}{10}\Bigr)\leq C_n(x)
\end{equation}
implies (3.9).
An application of Lemma 7 reveals that (3.10) is valid if $2\leq n\leq 21$ $(n\neq 6)$.

Now, let $n\geq 22$. We have the representation
\begin{equation}
C_n(x)-\frac{820}{33}\Bigl(1-\cos\frac{x}{10}\Bigr)=\Delta(x)+D_n(x),
\end{equation}
with $\Delta$ and $D_n$ as defined in
(2.8) and (2.9), respectively.
Applying Lemma 8 and Lemma 9
reveals that
\begin{equation}
\Delta(x)+D_n(x)\geq 0 \quad\mbox{for}
\quad{x \in [5\pi/8, 3.051].}
\end{equation}
From (3.11) and (3.12) we conclude
 that
(3.10) is valid for $x\in [5\pi/8,3.051]$.
This implies that (3.8) holds for $x\in [\pi-3.051,3\pi/8]$. Hence, it remains to
prove (3.8) for $x\in (0,\pi-3.051)$.
Since
$$
\frac{123}{1000}(\pi-x)^2<1.22
\quad\mbox{for} \quad{x\in (0,\pi-3.051)}
$$
and $\pi-3.051=0.090...$, it suffices to show that
\begin{equation}
1.22\leq T_n(x) \quad\mbox{for}
\quad{x \in (0, 0.1]}.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{equation}
T_n(x)=I(x)+J_n(x),
\end{equation}
where $I$ and $J_n$ are defined in (2.12) and (2.13), respectively. Applying Lemma 11 and Lemma 12
we conclude from (3.14) that (3.13) holds. This completes the proof of the Theorem.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\section{Concluding remarks}

(I) If we set $a_0=1$ and
 $a_k=1/k$ $(k\geq 1)$
in (1.1), then we find
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{\sin(kx)}{k}>0
\quad\mbox{and}
\quad{1+\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{\cos(kx)}{k}>0}
\quad{(n\geq 1; 0<x<\pi)}.
\end{equation}
The first inequality  is the famous
Fej\'er-Jackson inequality, which was conjectured by Fej\'er in 1910 and proved
one year later by Jackson \cite{J}. Its analogue for the cosine sum was published by Young \cite{Y} in 1913. Both inequalities  motivated the research of many
authors, who  presented numerous refinements, extensions, and variants
of (4.1). We refer to Askey \cite{A1}, Askey and Gasper \cite{AG},
Milovanovi\'c, Mitrinovi\'c, and Rassias \cite[chapter 4]{MMR} and the references cited therein.

Applying our Theorem
 we obtain an improvement of Young's inequality:
$$
1+\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{\cos(kx)}{k}
\geq \alpha (\pi-x)^2 \quad{(n\geq 1; 0<x<\pi)},
$$
{where $\alpha$ is given in} (3.3)

\vspace{0.2cm}
(II)  Askey and Steinig \cite{AS}
used Proposition 1 to prove the following
interesting result.

\vspace{0.3cm}
{\bf{Proposition 3.}} \emph{Let $\gamma_k$
$(k=0,1,...,n)$ be positive real numbers such that}
\begin{equation}
2k \gamma_k \leq (2k-1) \gamma_{k-1}
\quad{(k\geq 1)}.
\end{equation}
\emph{Then, for $n\geq 0$ and $t\in (0,2\pi)$,}
$$
\sum_{k=0}^n \gamma_k \sin \bigl( (k+1/4)t\bigr)>0
\quad{and}
\quad{\sum_{k=0}^n \gamma_k \cos\bigl( (k+1/4)t\bigr)>0.}
$$

An application of the Theorem leads to a refinement of the second inequality:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=0}^n \gamma_k \cos \bigl( (k+1/4)t\bigr)\geq  \frac{\alpha \gamma_0(2\pi-t)^2}{8 \cos(t/4)}
\quad{(n\geq 0; 0<t<2\pi)}.
\end{equation}

In order to prove (4.3) we set
$$
\gamma_k^*=\frac{1}{4^k}{2k\choose k}
=\frac{1}{k! }\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)_k
\quad{(k\geq 0)}.
$$
Then,
\begin{equation}
2\cos(t/4)\sum_{k=0}^j \gamma_k^* \cos \bigl( (k+1/4)t\bigr)=T_{2j+1}(t/2)
\geq \alpha (\pi-t/2)^2
\quad\mbox{for}
\quad{j=0,1,...,n}.
\end{equation}
We define
$$
\beta_k=\frac{\gamma_k}{\gamma_k^*}
\quad{(k\geq 0)}
$$
and apply (4.2). This yields
$$
\beta_0\geq \beta_1 \geq \cdots \geq \beta_n>0.
$$
Using (4.4) and Lemma 6 leads to
$$
\sum_{k=0}^n \gamma_k \cos \bigl( (k+1/4)t\bigr)=
\sum_{k=0}^n \beta_k\gamma_k^* \cos\bigl( (k+1/4)t\bigr)
\geq \beta_0 \frac{\alpha(\pi-t/2)^2}{2\cos(t/4)}.
$$
Since $\beta_0=\gamma_0$, we get (4.3).

\vspace{0.2cm}
(III) The classical Jacobi polynomials
$P_m^{(a,b)}(z)$ are given by
$$
P_m^{(a,b)}(z)=
\frac{(a+1)_m}{m! }\sum_{k=0}^m
\frac{(-m)_k (m+a+b+1)_k}{k! (a+1)_k}\Bigl(\frac{1-z}{2}\Bigr)^k.
$$
A collection of the main properties of these functions
can be found, for instance, in
 \cite[chapter 1.2.7]{MMR}.
An application of (4.4) (with $t=4x, j=n)$ and the
identity
$$
\frac{P_m^{(-1/2,-1/2)}(\cos(x))}{P_m^{(-1/2,-1/2)}(1)}=\cos(m x)
$$
(with $m=4k+1)$ yields
$$
\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{1}{k! } \Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)_k
\frac{P_{4k+1}^{(-1/2,-1/2)}(\cos(x))}{P_{4k+1}^{(-1/2,-1/2)}(1)}\geq
\frac{\alpha (\pi-2 x)^2}{2\cos(x)}
\quad{(n\geq 0; 0< x<\pi/2)}.
$$
For related inequalities we refer to
Askey \cite{As},  Askey and Gasper
\cite{AG1}, \cite{AG} and the references therein.

\vspace{0.7cm}
{\bf{Acknowledgement.}} We thank the referees for helpful comments.

\vspace{0.9cm}


Sums of Consecutive Integers

Abstract: A decomposition of a natural number n is a sequence of consecutive natural numbers that sums to n. We construct a one-to-one correspondence between the odd factors of a natural number and its decompositions. We study the decompositions by their lengths and introduce the concept of length spectrum. Also, we use diagrams to illustrate the ideas behind our proofs.

\section*{The Proof}
We start by defining a {\em decomposition of a natural number $ n$} to
be a sequence of consecutive natural numbers whose sum is $n$.  The
number of terms is called the {\em length of the decomposition}, and a
decomposition of length $1$ is called {\em trivial}.  Further, a
decomposition is called {\em odd} ({\em even}) if its length is odd
(even). For example, consider the number $15$. It has four
decompositions, $(15), (7, 8), (4, 5, 6)$ and $(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)$, one
even and three odd.

We will construct a one-to-one correspondence between the odd factors
of a number and its decompositions. This proves the conjecture since
the powers of $2$ are precisely those numbers with only one odd factor
(namely $1$) and thus they have only the trivial decomposition.

Here is our construction: Let $k$ be an odd factor of $n$. Then since
the sum of the $k$ integers from $-(k-1)/2$ to $(k-1)/2$ is $0$,
adding $n/k$ to each of them gives the sequence
\begin{equation} \label{eq:odd}
\frac{n}{k}-\frac{k-1}{2},\quad \frac{n}{k}-\frac{k-1}{2}+1, \quad
\cdots, \quad \frac{n}{k}+\frac{k-1}{2},
\end{equation}
whose sum is
\[ \sum_{j=-(k-1)/2}^{(k-1)/2} (\frac{n}{k}+j)
= \frac{n}{k}\cdot k \quad + \sum_{j=-(k-1)/2}^{(k-1)/2} j = n+0 = n.\]
There are now two cases to consider:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $(k-1)/2 < n/k$. Then~\eqref{eq:odd} is already an odd
  decomposition of $n$. The length of this decomposition is $k$.

\item[(ii)] $(k-1)/2 \ge n/k$. Then~\eqref{eq:odd} begins with 0 or a
  negative number. After dropping the 0 and canceling the negative
  terms with the corresponding positive ones, we are left with the
  sequence
\begin{equation} \label{eq:even}
  \frac{k-1}{2}- \frac{n}{k} +1, \quad \frac{k-1}{2}-\frac{n}{k} + 2,
  \quad \cdots, \quad \frac{n}{k} +
  \frac{k-1}{2},
\end{equation}
which is an even decomposition of $n$ of length $2n/k$.
\end{itemize}
We call the decomposition in either~\eqref{eq:odd} or~\eqref{eq:even}
the {\em decomposition of $ n$ associated with $ k$}.

To show that every decomposition of $n$ arises this way, suppose
$(a+i)_{i=1}^m$ is a decomposition of $n$. Since its sum $m(2a+m+1)/2$
is $n$, either $m$ or $2a + m+1$ (but not both), depending on the
parity of $m$, is an odd factor of $n$.  It is then straightforward to
verify that the given decomposition is the one associated with that
odd factor.

We have in fact delivered more than we promised. Note that the
condition $(k-1)/2 < n/k$ is equivalent to $k-1 < 2n/k$, but since $k$
is odd the condition is therefore the same as $k < 2n/k$, or
equivalently $k < \sqrt{2n}$.  Likewise, $(k-1)/2 \ge n/k$ is
equivalent to $k > \sqrt{2n}$. Therefore, we have proved the
following:
\begin{thm}
  There is a one-to-one correspondence between the odd factors of a
  natural number $n$ and its decompositions. More precisely, for each
  odd factor $k$ of $n$, if $k < \sqrt{2n}$, then~\eqref{eq:odd} is an
  odd decomposition of $n$ of length $k$. If $k > \sqrt{2n}$,
  then~\eqref{eq:even} is an even decomposition of $n$ of length
  $2n/k$. Moreover, these are all the decompositions of $n$.
\end{thm}
An immediate consequence of the theorem is that {\em the number of
  decompositions of $n$ is the number of odd factors of $n$}, which is
$\prod_p (e_p+1)$, where $p$ runs through the odd primes and $e_p$ is
the power of $p$ appearing in the prime factorization of $n$. Let us
illustrate both this formula and the theorem with the example $n=45$.
Since $45=3^2 \cdot 5$, there should be six decompositions, four odd
and two even, and indeed here they are:
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{\small The decompositions of 45} \label{t:decomp45}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline
$k$ & $(k-1)/2$ & $n/k$ & decomposition & length & parity\\
\hline
1 & 0 & 45 & (45) & 1 &odd\\
3 & 1 & 15 & (14, 15, 16) & 3 &odd\\
5 & 2 & 9  & (7, 8, 9, 10, 11) & 5 &odd\\
9 & 4 & 5  & (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) & 9 &odd\\
15& 7 & 3  & (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) &6 &even\\
45& 22& 1  & (22, 23) & 2 &even\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section*{The Length Spectra}
We define the {\em length spectrum of $ n$}, denoted by
$\lspec(n)$, to be the set of lengths of the decompositions of $n$.
According to the theorem, $\lspec(n)$ is the set
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ k \colon k \ \text{odd},\ k\, |\, n,\ k < \sqrt{2n} \right\}
\cup \left\{ 2n/k \colon k\ \text{odd},\ k\, |\, n,\
k > \sqrt{2n} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
For example, we have seen that $\lspec(45) = \{1,3,5,9\} \cup \{2,6\}$
(Table~\ref{t:decomp45}). In the following, we record some simple
facts about length spectra. Most of them are direct consequences of
the theorem. An in-depth treatment of this notion is given
in~\cite{lspec}.

Let $(k_i)_{i=1}^s$ be the list of odd factors of $n$ in ascending
order. Thus, $k_1=1$, $k_2$ (if it exists) is the smallest odd prime
factor of $n$, and $n = 2^dk_s$ for some $d \ge 0$. Let $r$ be the
largest index ($1 \le r \le s$) such that $k_r < \sqrt{2n}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The length of an even decomposition of $n$ is of the form
  $2n/k_j$, and hence the highest power of $2$ that divides any even
  element of $\lspec(n)$ is $2^{d+1}$. This observation rules out, for
  example, the possibility of the set $\{1,2,3,4\}$ being a length
  spectrum.

\item The smallest number with a length spectrum of size $s$ is
  $3^{s-1}$. The smallest number with $m$ in its length spectrum is
  clearly
  \[ 1+2+\cdots + m = m(m+1)/2.\] In other words, $m \in \lspec(n)$
  implies $m(m+1)/2 \le n$. Hence $m \le (-1+\sqrt{1+8n})/2$. This
  gives an upper bound on the elements of $\lspec(n)$ in terms of $n$.

\item The longest decomposition of $n$ has length $\max\{k_r,
  2n/k_{r+1}\}$ (the maximum is $k_r$ if $n$ has no even
  decompositions). The shortest non-trivial decomposition of $n$ (if
  any) has length $\min\{k_2, 2n/k_s\} = \min\{k_2, 2^{d+1}\}$.

\item The condition $k_s < \sqrt{2n}$, or equivalently $k_s <
  2^{d+1}$, is clearly both necessary and sufficient for $n$ to have
  only odd decompositions. The situation, however, is quite different
  for even decompositions: if $k_j > \sqrt{2n}$, then $k_s/k_j <
  2k_s/k_j < \sqrt{2n}$, so the number of even decompositions of $n$
  is at most the number of odd decompositions of $n$. Consequently, if
  every non-trivial decomposition of $n$ is even, then $n$ has exactly
  one non-trivial decomposition. Those numbers with this property are
  precisely the numbers of the form $2^dk$ with $k$ an odd prime $>
  2^{d+1}$.
\end{enumerate}

\section*{Epilogue}
Finding the exact number of decompositions of $n$ can be hard. In
general, the formula $\prod_{p}(e_p+1)$ is impractical for large $n$
since it essentially calls for the prime factorization of $n$.  What
LeVeque obtained in~\cite{lev}, among other things, was the average
order of the number of decompositions as a function of $n$.  Moreover,
he discussed not only the sums of consecutive integers but the sums of
arithmetic progressions in general.  Readers with a taste for analytic
number theory will find his article enjoyable.

Guy gave a very short proof of the theorem in~\cite{guy}, then deduced
from it a characterization of primes. He gave some rough estimates of
the number of decompositions and also remarked that finding this
number explicitly is not easy.

Weil's book~\cite{weil} is merely a collection of exercises for the
elementary number theory course given by him at University of Chicago
in the summer of 1949. Maxwell Rosenlicht, an assistant of Weil's at
that time, was in charge of the ``laboratory'' section and responsible
for most of the exercises. It was a relief to learn from Weil that the
challenge of motivating students to work on problems is rather common.
The following is part of the foreword taken directly from that book:
\begin{quote}
  The course consisted of two lectures a week, supplemented by a
  weekly ``laboratory period'' where students were given exercises...
  . The idea was borrowed from the ``Praktikum'' of German
  universities.  Being alien to the local tradition, it did not work
  out as well as I had hoped, and student attendance at the problem
  sessions soon became desultory.
\end{quote}

An obvious but crucial point in our proof of the conjecture is that
$0$ can be expressed as the sum of an odd number of consecutive
integers. Let me explain the intuition behind this trick here.  The
sum of the first $n$ consecutive natural numbers is called the {\em
  $n$-th triangular number} because $1, 2, \cdots, n$ can be
arranged to form a triangle (see Figure~\ref{f:tri}).
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{equation*}
  \yng(1,2,3,4)
\end{equation*}
\caption{\small The $4$-th triangular number is $10$.}
\label{f:tri}
\end{figure}
Now a sum of consecutive numbers can be viewed as the difference of
two triangular numbers (or a ``trapezoidal number'').  Also, a number
$n$, as long as it is not a power of 2, can be represented by an
$(n/k) \times k$ rectangle with $k>1$ an odd factor of $n$.  So the
question is: how can you get a trapezoid from such a rectangle?  Well,
it does not take a big leap of imagination to see that this can be
done by cutting off a corner of the rectangle and flipping it over.
For example, the diagrams in Figure~\ref{f:transf} illustrate how we
obtain the decomposition $(2,3,4,5,6)$ of $20$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{equation*}
  \raise-.52in
  \hbox{\young(\hfil\hfil\hfil\bullet\bullet,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil\bullet,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil)}
  \qquad \leadsto \qquad
  \young(\bullet,\bullet\bullet,\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil)
\end{equation*}
\caption{\small Transforming a $4 \times 5$ rectangle into a trapezoid}
\label{f:transf}
\end{figure}
Of course, one has to worry about the case when $n/k < (k-1)/2$, but
this is exactly why the use of negative numbers comes in handy. The
diagrams in Figure~\ref{f:decomp} should be self-explanatory.
\begin{figure}[htp]
  \begin{align*}
    \yng(7,7) \quad &= \quad \phantom{+} \quad
    \young(\hfil,\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil,::::---,:::::--,::::::-)
    \quad \\ \\
    &\phantom{=} \quad + \quad \yng(7,7)\\
    &\phantom{=} \quad \underline{\phantom{111111111111111111111}} \\
    &= \quad \phantom{+} \quad
    \young(\hfil,\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil\hspace{-0.7em}\not,::::::\not\hspace{-0.2em}-)
    \quad = \quad \raise-23.5pt \hbox{
      \young(\hfil,\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil,\hfil\hfil\hfil\hfil)}
  \end{align*}
  \caption{\small The decomposition (2,3,4,5) of 14.}
  \label{f:decomp}
\end{figure}

{\em Acknowledgment.}  I would like to thank Greg Kallo, the editor,
and the referees for many helpful suggestions on the presentation of
this article.

History and Overview (math.HO); Number Theory (math.NT)

Sums of Consecutive Integers